Quote:
Originally Posted by bnorth
Do you think less people would have died without the vaccines and quarantines? Just a simple yes or no because I don't need any links or long explanation that doesn't give a yes or no answer.
|
Not specifically directed at you but a jumping off point.
To the question as posed, No. But it ignores other aspects to our response (the unintended consequences), which we may never fully realize but do exist. Those whose health was impacted by imposed isolation and FUD being spread on how to deal with the virus. Should we ignore that? Those holding off on treatment, suicides, not to mention the cost of stress and other impacts. Or should we remove from the count the policies that were put in place that caused additional deaths (warehousing positive patients in nursing homes, as one example). What if we had let the let the virus run it's course initially? Could we have had more initial deaths but less in the long run? Who knows. So it's not a binary question and answer.
To be harsh, but if you really want to understand the impact to the population as a whole, you need to determine the lost 'time of life' to determine the true impact. In the extreme, it is a bigger 'loss of life' for a million children to die than a million elderly patients (of which I would be one). Back when I was paying attention to the numbers on the CDC website (late 2020) when there were hundreds of thousands of deaths but the total number of deaths for those under 18 were under 100 and those under 6 were ZERO. But of course that type of analysis doesn't play well to people's emotions beyond pissing some off into flippantly saying it is 'uncaring' to do that.
There are a lot of crackpot theories out there, but not all that disagree are basing it on crackpot theories either. And as to those questioning those who mistrust what the government and the experts are saying, why do you find that surprising? Have you not been paying attention for the past 8-10 years (and longer)?